Presidentism of the Day

posted at 8:05 am on January 13, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Yes, I know I usually start weekdays with an amateurish stumble du jour from our nation’s Chief Executive, but in light of his speech last night, President Barack Obama deserves credit for not just avoiding the train wreck over the last few days in partisan sniping, but addressing it head on at the memorial service for the murdered in Tucson. Instead, Obama gave a moving speech that transcended (and quelled) the strange pep-rally vibe that had permeated the event prior to his taking the stage, one that genuinely connected us to each of the lives snuffed out by a senseless murder spree, especially perhaps Christina Green, the youngest of the dead at age 9. And in his own way, with a three-word ad-lib, Obama rebuked the nonsensical blamethrowing that had begun within minutes of the tragedy.

Allahpundit quoted the key part of the speech last night, but I’ll do it again here:

You see, when a tragedy like this strikes, it is part of our nature to demand explanations – to try to impose some order on the chaos, and make sense out of that which seems senseless. Already we’ve seen a national conversation commence, not only about the motivations behind these killings, but about everything from the merits of gun safety laws to the adequacy of our mental health systems. Much of this process, of debating what might be done to prevent such tragedies in the future, is an essential ingredient in our exercise of self-government.

But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.

Scripture tells us that there is evil in the world, and that terrible things happen for reasons that defy human understanding. In the words of Job, “when I looked for light, then came darkness.” Bad things happen, and we must guard against simple explanations in the aftermath.

For the truth is that none of us can know exactly what triggered this vicious attack. None of us can know with any certainty what might have stopped those shots from being fired, or what thoughts lurked in the inner recesses of a violent man’s mind.

So yes, we must examine all the facts behind this tragedy. We cannot and will not be passive in the face of such violence. We should be willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of violence in the future.

But what we can’t do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together.

After all, that’s what most of us do when we lose someone in our family – especially if the loss is unexpected. We’re shaken from our routines, and forced to look inward. We reflect on the past. Did we spend enough time with an aging parent, we wonder. Did we express our gratitude for all the sacrifices they made for us? Did we tell a spouse just how desperately we loved them, not just once in awhile but every single day?

So sudden loss causes us to look backward – but it also forces us to look forward, to reflect on the present and the future, on the manner in which we live our lives and nurture our relationships with those who are still with us. We may ask ourselves if we’ve shown enough kindness and generosity and compassion to the people in our lives. Perhaps we question whether we are doing right by our children, or our community, and whether our priorities are in order. We recognize our own mortality, and are reminded that in the fleeting time we have on this earth, what matters is not wealth, or status, or power, or fame – but rather, how well we have loved, and what small part we have played in bettering the lives of others.

That process of reflection, of making sure we align our values with our actions – that, I believe, is what a tragedy like this requires. For those who were harmed, those who were killed – they are part of our family, an American family 300 million strong. We may not have known them personally, but we surely see ourselves in them. In George and Dot, in Dorwan and Mavy, we sense the abiding love we have for our own husbands, our own wives, our own life partners. Phyllis – she’s our mom or grandma; Gabe our brother or son. In Judge Roll, we recognize not only a man who prized his family and doing his job well, but also a man who embodied America’s fidelity to the law. In Gabby, we see a reflection of our public spiritedness, that desire to participate in that sometimes frustrating, sometimes contentious, but always necessary and never-ending process to form a more perfect union.

And in Christina…in Christina we see all of our children. So curious, so trusting, so energetic and full of magic.

So deserving of our love.

And so deserving of our good example. If this tragedy prompts reflection and debate, as it should, let’s make sure it’s worthy of those we have lost. Let’s make sure it’s not on the usual plane of politics and point scoring and pettiness that drifts away with the next news cycle.

But it was the next section that delivered the message, with an ad-lib I’ll note in bold:

The loss of these wonderful people should make every one of us strive to be better in our private lives – to be better friends and neighbors, co-workers and parents. And if, as has been discussed in recent days, their deaths help usher in more civility in our public discourse, let’s remember that it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy – it did not – but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation, in a way that would make them proud. It should be because we want to live up to the example of public servants like John Roll and Gabby Giffords, who knew first and foremost that we are all Americans, and that we can question each other’s ideas without questioning each other’s love of country, and that our task, working together, is to constantly widen the circle of our concern so that we bequeath the American dream to future generations.

Frankly, the tenor of politics since Saturday hit such an irrational pitch that I wondered whether Obama would be able to make this point at all. Clearly, Obama took this moment seriously enough to lead rather than to pursue partisan cheap shots, using the dishonest “some have said” device to which the media has clung over the last couple of days after the evidence became overwhelming that the murderer was a psychopath of no particular rational ideology. He told the nation in no unclear terms that the argument that a lack of civility led to these deaths is simply flat-out wrong.

Some of my friends may criticize Obama for not defending Palin specifically, or for waiting until the memorial to have rebuked those attempting to exploit the deaths for political gain. On the first point, though, this was a memorial service and it wouldn’t have been appropriate to name other names than the dead, the wounded, and the heros who helped save lives. The second point may be germane criticism of the previous couple of days, but even if it came late, Obama stepped up and led last night.

So kudos to President Obama for what may be the finest moment of his presidency. I disagree with his policies and many of his tactics, and I will have no problem getting back to work in opposing them after this post publishes. But he deserves credit and gratitude for his leadership at a point in time where the nation needed it, and I’m happy to give him both.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

Take a step back … if George W. Bush was still President of the US, he would have been blame for this tragedy in Tucson … based on the fact that he ultimately would have been the chief law enforcement officer in the US.

I wonder why Obama escaped such a fate.

We all know the answer to that … they blamed it on some non-governmental civilian woman in Alaska.

And for those that will say this is stooping to their level one question: Do you want to win or do you want to sit on the sidelines and watch THEM control the narrative?
kim roy on January 13, 2011 at 2:15 PM

We are winning. Meanwhile, Ed and Allah are hosts here, you are their guest. You can debate with passion and voice your opinions without ‘flinging crap their way’. Both Ed and Allah have been completely on top of this situation, with thread after thread dealing with the shameful behavior of the media and some politicians. Just because they take a position you disagree with does not mean they have betrayed the conservative cause. This is a marketplace of ideas, not a place to shop for pre-approved talking points.

I certainly don’t have any love for President Obama’s policies, but two points: first, Obama is President of the United States and I have respect for that office. In times of tragedy like this, it is the president’s job to comfort the nation, and he did this well. Secondly, it behooves us to state the times that we agree with Obama, that gives us more credibility when we voice opposition to one of his policies.

Sadly, I don’t think so. I think we lost this battle. The left got their narrative successfully established right out of the gate. A big chunk of the Muddle are going to come away thinking that the forces of right wing hate were at work in the Tucson murders.

And, with help from a bunch of people supposedly on our side, now they’re also going to think “wow, the President really handled that well.”

I don’t know about y’all’s blood pressure, but mine’s a lot higher than it was a week ago. And who knew a week ago that Obama would be given this golden crisis to campaign on?

Did no one but me find that offensive? I will never listen to anything he has to say again, and then he says Obama was brilliant. RINO!
silvernana on January 13, 2011 at 2:39 PM

No I didn’t find it offensive. Dr. K is “paid” political pundit. He gets “paid” to offer his opinion and if you don’t like it, change the channel and see if you can find something better that suits your narrative.

The atmosphere and cheering was not appropriate for a solemn meeting such as a Memorial Service. During his speech he in essence took credit for Giffords opening her eyes. Awkwardly, he repeated that phrase over and over and over again while everyone cheered that was reminiscent to me of the Wellstone Memorial.

Good oratories are usually known for the eloquence in brevity and ability to metaphorically and concisely convey the thoughts and feelings and atmosphere of the moment. As a further example confirming my view I submit the Gettysburg Address. In length reading it would take 2-3 minutes depending on verbal timing. Former Sen. Edwards at the time gave a 2 hour speech. No one remembers him or the speech. What everyone remembers about Gettysburg is Pres. Lincolns 2 minute speech.

President Obama spoke for 30 minutes. If it took him that long to convey his thoughts at a Memorial Service it was an Epic Fail. Describe a bunch of words as well spoken fine. But this was NOT Presidential. Saying it is doesn’t make it so. No one will remember a word of his speech by even next year.

And you know what they say about the customer being right…especially when they’re wrong.
Christien on January 13, 2011 at 3:19 PM

Are you suggesting they should write columns which pander to one perspective? Or that they took this particular position in order to create an internal flamewar so traffic would pick up? I’m not an uncynical person, but both of those possibilities are silly. Sure AP in particular likes his “red meat” threads, but I’m quite certain this singular exception to daily Obamateurisms was not a calculated effort to drive up traffic by purposefully annoying readers.

I saw that and it was well said. We ALL remember “Tear Down This Wall!” The WORLD remembers that. Do you remember what Pres. Obama said in Germany during his speech on the campaign trail? Are people around the world repeating and phrase of anything ONE speech Pres. Obama has given? What do you remember of Pres. Obama? “I won”? “Punish our enemies”? Anything I can remember are things that are less than Presidential. For Pete’s sake, Ed has a on-going post called The Obamateurism of the Day. I’ll remember him bowing to China and Saudia Arabia. Probably not much more.

“There has been relatively little criticism of the context of President Obama’s speech last night calling for civility in the wake of the Tucson tragedy – in fact, conservative blogger Ed Morrissey called it perhaps “the finest moment of his presidency.” ”

Even Pres. Clinton had brevity. I’m not this because Pres. Obama is a Democrat. I’m saying it because telling me that this speech was Presidential and the right tone for this circumstance smack of BS. It’s like GOP Pundits feel they have to give him some kudos simply because it was a Memorial Service and religiously they have to convey some sort of grace or mercy to the moment. Pres. Obama’s speech deserves no such respect.

Some of my friends may criticize Obama for not defending Palin specifically, or for waiting until the memorial to have rebuked those attempting to exploit the deaths for political gain.

Ed, you are right that last night was not the place to make those remarks. He will have a perfect opportunity to defend gov Palin and rebuke the media/exploiters during his weekly radio show this Saturday. I hope he will; it will go a long way in taking the sting out of slapping my face when he signed the Financial Regulation law in the Reagan building. Defending Gov Palin can set a calmer tone for the upcoming campaign. It’s up to Mr. Obama to lead the way; without action words are just rhetoric.

“There has been relatively little criticism of the context of President Obama’s speech last night calling for civility in the wake of the Tucson tragedy – in fact, conservative blogger Ed Morrissey called it perhaps “the finest moment of his presidency.” ”

Let our guard down, even for a moment, and that will be exploited again and again…used against us and our fellows without remorse.

Edmund Burke had it right, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

And Samuel Adams gives a very salient and apt admonishment,
“If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

Oh and I’ll bet anyone here a $100 dollars that the theme for Obamas re-election campaign is going to be “Together We Thrive”.

CCRWM on January 13, 2011 at 11:37 AM

Is there a way that HA can set up an account for each better to send in $1.- that Together We Thrive is the new Hopey-Changey? We could then send the proceeds to the winner of the Republican Primary….whomever it is! Oh never mind…that will surely cause more trouble. But, I am in on the bet!

So, I didn’t hear Obama’s speech, but if I understand this right, Ed and Allah are keying on three words in this speech, “It did not,” and saying that makes him a “leader” and it makes up for over four days of him sitting around saying NOTHING about the smears engaged in by his minions? How embarrassing to see the fawning over this speech, in light of Obama’s silence all week!

I am also not buying the ridiculous notion that the White House had nothing to do with those t-shirts. The U of A would have built a freakin’ SHRINE to Obama if he had asked them to. That was a political slogan, and it was undoubtedly okayed by Obama’s people, if not instigated by them.

He shouldnt have mentioned anything about civility causing this tragedy. This should have been all about the victims. Obama or one his boys should have stomped out “the civility caused this tragedy” days ago. But they knew the longer it was out there the more they would get from it.

No I didn’t find it offensive. Dr. K is “paid” political pundit. He gets “paid” to offer his opinion and if you don’t like it, change the channel and see if you can find something better that suits your narrative.

Good luck in your search.

Knucklehead on January 13, 2011 at 3:24 PM

Oh, thank you, wise one, for your sage advice about changing the channel. I’ve watched Fox ever since they started up, but I never would have realized I could change the channel if Krauthammer says something ignorant without you telling me. P. S. I believe I can disagree with him and still watch the channel.

and all across the country the left’s victory marches on. I have been thinking about the right wing reaction including this site’s to Obama’a victory. I am bothered that the evil man have triumphed. The Kos, Yglesias, Sullivan, etc… and the msm in general have shown they can destroy and spread poison with a great deal of success. Obama was the only person who could have possibly stopped them and he waited 4 days to actually step up to the plate. Am I glad the president did right yesterday, of course, why did he wait though? Politics is about credibility, credibility in politics often isn’t about truth, its about the ability to influence events. In that case bloggers such as this site won every battle over the past days while netroots types were proven wrong at every turn, and they are the ones who came out stronger. And the biggest winner was Obama, who allowed the evil to fester and then clean it up. And here is the trick, as Obama gains power, so do the netroots, and that overwhelms every single blogger victory Hot Air scored this week and I believe that is why I (and reading the comments others) are frustrated. That is what I think.

So Obama gets kudos from the left and the right for the great grand gesture of not politicizing a national tragedy, like he usually does. Bravo. But what will all the cheerleaders say when he returns to business as usual in the days, weeks, and months ahead? Have we really become a people who endure invective after invective from our president, only to offer him high praise for the one occasion when he doesn’t do that? And the only reason he didn’t was because he had simply run out of road; on that day in that place, he just couldn’t get away with it. Is this high praise being given for his ability to see the obvious and act accordingly? In this case, acting accordingly meaning acting counter to his usual, instinctive incivility and seething contempt toward his fellow citizens? Bravo, again. But nothing will have changed. What is the point of all of this? Why allow the most uncivil president we’ve ever had get away with chastising the nation for incivility? It is simply absurd. How foolish we will all look very soon when our President isn’t bound by the solemnity of burying the dead and he can once again attack those who disagree with him with his usual ideological venom. And thanks to this high praise that this time — this one time — the bully didn’t spit in anyone’s face, he’ll attack from a much stronger position. Yes, bravo indeed.

This speech is like a magic chemical you pour on pool water to make the urine turn red. The pool of which I speak is conservatism and the red trails are streaming from virtually every so-called conservative on the right.

I’m saying I think Ed does what is best for the business. I think Salem Communications agrees. Is that silly to you, too?
Christien on January 13, 2011 at 4:28 PM

I think Ed writes what he wants to write. That was the deal with Malkin, and I betcha it’s the deal with Salem.

Did you get scolded by Buy Danish, too? He/she has been busy today telling everyone how to behave and think.
silvernana on January 13, 2011 at 4:39 PM

Oh please! I did not tell you how to “think”. Ironic isn’t it since some of you want to tell Ed (and Allah) what to think and what to write (and you in particular had a tantrum over Charles Krauthammer, which was…ta da…an over-zealous reaction to what he thinks and says).

As for how you “behave” I gently reminded some of you of the fact that you are guests and it’s not necessary to “fling crap” quote/unquote. Since you are oh so bothered by that, perhaps a zoo (or sandbox) is a better place for you?

Yes, this speech is a fine work by our President, and appreciate the leadership quality of it, and praise the President for giving it.

The lurking question I have, though, is could he, or rather would he, have given this speech if the media narrative wasn’t falling apart? You know the one I’m talking about. The right-wing-nut-job with swastika tatoos commits atrocity while chanting Sarah Palin and listening to AM radio at ear piercing volume. As this ridiculous fabrication has helped to illustrate the manufacturing of news by the Leftist media, coupled with the clearer picture of Loughner’s background resembling more of a Left wing stereotype, suddenly (after all the damage has been done) he’s just a nut job.

Look, you can praise the President when he deserves it, but make no mistake, if this guy had been a right wing nut case, and the media narrative fit the actual truth, the White House would not have made this speech.

As for how you “behave” I gently reminded some of you of the fact that you are guests and it’s not necessary to “fling crap” quote/unquote. Since you are oh so bothered by that, perhaps a zoo (or sandbox) is a better place for you?

Ironic isn’t it since some of you want to tell Ed (and Allah) what to think and what to write (and you in particular had a tantrum over Charles Krauthammer, which was…ta da…an over-zealous reaction to what he thinks and says).

Buy Danish on January 13, 2011 at 5:31 PM

While it’s true that many have said (in one form or another) “You suck” to Ed et al., I can’t recall anyone that said “You must stop sucking.” Perhaps if you posted an example.

This president is so bad that when he merely tells the TRUTH (“it did not”), HA and FNC has to PAT him on the back and tell him how wonderful he is!

Guess what? He’s not all that. So what, he told the TRUTH. Well, I kind of expect that from a POTUS. I don’t pat people on the back for such a no-brainer statement. The majority of people aren’t buying the rhetoric-meme from the MSM, everyone knows that there isn’t a shred of evidence for it; and yet we’re supposed to turn somersults because the POTUS didn’t insist on telling lies?

My tin-foil hat says that the POTUS loved seeing the MSM go nuts just so that he could come off looking centrist when he didn’t agree with their false premise.

And for those that will say this is stooping to their level one question: Do you want to win or do you want to sit on the sidelines and watch THEM control the narrative?
kim roy on January 13, 2011 at 2:15 PM

BUY DANISH:
We are winning. Meanwhile, Ed and Allah are hosts here, you are their guest. You can debate with passion and voice your opinions without ‘flinging crap their way’. Both Ed and Allah have been completely on top of this situation, with thread after thread dealing with the shameful behavior of the media and some politicians. Just because they take a position you disagree with does not mean they have betrayed the conservative cause. This is a marketplace of ideas, not a place to shop for pre-approved talking points.

Buy Danish on January 13, 2011 at 3:09 PM

But we aren’t winning. How can we be winning when they have the biggest pulpits, get a four day head start and then throw BS to the wind, which some of our supposed “smarter people” should be able to see coming a mile away?

We would be winning if our “leaders” would have called BS on day two. We would be winning if SOMEONE in the GOP would stand up and call BS. The only person doing that is SP and look what they are doing to her.

That’s not winning. That’s barely hanging on.

Like I said before, Obama could have been crapping out golden eggs. ****IT’S TOO LATE**** This is just me, but I don’t care what he says. It’s too late. He can ramble out the speech of the decade and IT’S TOO LATE.

Five days to run with the ball and when we finally have the opportunity to work with it we get “ooooo. shiny words. pretty.”.

If you are satisfied with the status quo and *ALLOWING* the left to have the narrative because you are worried that someone might get their feelings hurt or want to be liked or want to be polite, then get out of the way.

If you haven’t noticed, the left is still going at it. Why? Because they know a good portion of the right has no stomach or spine to do what is needed. Do you think Code Pink worries about niceties? SEIU? Obviously not the LSM.

How’s this civility working out for you? I saw the last 10 years get wasted away by vile, hateful people that we have been too concerned about hurting their feelings.

**IN MY OPINION** anyone who thinks that this speech was adequate in any shape, way or form has totally missed the point and have been napping in the last 10 years. The left is laughing. They know that a lot of conservatives are weak and scared of doing what is needed to win.

Review the last 10 years and I ask again, how’s the civility working out for you?

“There has been relatively little criticism of the context of President Obama’s speech last night calling for civility in the wake of the Tucson tragedy – in fact, conservative blogger Ed Morrissey called it perhaps “the finest moment of his presidency.” ”

‘Gain and again and again (and, apparently, again), this is a business, first and foremost, and, at the end of the balance sheet, writing whatever you want must net sufficient profit. Evidently, it does.

The Liar in Chief can go where the crowd already is but he proved last fall the American people have turned him off and tuned him out as he could not fill a gym in the liberal NE now all thats’ left is to TURN HIM OUT and Palin will do that!

While it’s true that many have said (in one form or another) “You suck” to Ed et al., I can’t recall anyone that said “You must stop sucking.” Perhaps if you posted an example.
Ronnie on January 13, 2011 at 5:57 PM

I never made the argument you claim I made. This commenter (the crap slinger) did make noises about leaving:

I don’t see a need to be thoughtful and reasoned after being called a murderer (and a racist, but that’s a different day) and seeing someone who is supposed to be the leader of *everyone* essentially attempt to guarantee his next term. I’d prefer to win and if it means leaving people like Ed behind, then so be it.
kim roy on January 13, 2011 at 2:38 PM

And then we have a tantrum against C.K. here:

Did no one but me find that offensive? I will never listen to anything he has to say again, and then he says Obama was brilliant. RINO!
silvernana on January 13, 2011 at 2:39 PM

kim roy on January 13, 2011 at 6:19 PM

The polls say we’re winning.

BTW, I re-read all my comments to see if I was being unnecessarily priggish. I stand by what I said. My original comment to silvernana was completely respectful. Oddly enough his first comment of the day was fine, but at some point he went off the deep end and came back whining about me being a scold.

“There has been relatively little criticism of the context of President Obama’s speech last night calling for civility in the wake of the Tucson tragedy – in fact, conservative blogger Ed Morrissey called it perhaps “the finest moment of his presidency.” ”

While it’s true that many have said (in one form or another) “You suck” to Ed et al., I can’t recall anyone that said “You must stop sucking.” Perhaps if you posted an example.
Ronnie on January 13, 2011 at 5:57 PM

I never made the argument you claim I made. This commenter (the crap slinger) did make noises about leaving:

I don’t see a need to be thoughtful and reasoned after being called a murderer (and a racist, but that’s a different day) and seeing someone who is supposed to be the leader of *everyone* essentially attempt to guarantee his next term. I’d prefer to win and if it means leaving people like Ed behind, then so be it.
kim roy on January 13, 2011 at 2:38 PM

I’m not sure where you get the impression that I’m “making noises about leaving”. I’m saying that we move forward without people like Ed.

But we aren’t winning. How can we be winning when they have the biggest pulpits, get a four day head start and then throw BS to the wind, which some of our supposed “smarter people” should be able to see coming a mile away?

We would be winning if our “leaders” would have called BS on day two. We would be winning if SOMEONE in the GOP would stand up and call BS. The only person doing that is SP and look what they are doing to her.

That’s not winning. That’s barely hanging on.

Like I said before, Obama could have been crapping out golden eggs. ****IT’S TOO LATE**** This is just me, but I don’t care what he says. It’s too late. He can ramble out the speech of the decade and IT’S TOO LATE.

Five days to run with the ball and when we finally have the opportunity to work with it we get “ooooo. shiny words. pretty.”.

If you are satisfied with the status quo and *ALLOWING* the left to have the narrative because you are worried that someone might get their feelings hurt or want to be liked or want to be polite, then get out of the way.

If you haven’t noticed, the left is still going at it. Why? Because they know a good portion of the right has no stomach or spine to do what is needed. Do you think Code Pink worries about niceties? SEIU? Obviously not the LSM.

How’s this civility working out for you? I saw the last 10 years get wasted away by vile, hateful people that we have been too concerned about hurting their feelings.

**IN MY OPINION** anyone who thinks that this speech was adequate in any shape, way or form has totally missed the point and have been napping in the last 10 years. The left is laughing. They know that a lot of conservatives are weak and scared of doing what is needed to win.

Review the last 10 years and I ask again, how’s the civility working out for you?

kim roy on January 13, 2011 at 6:19 PM

People think the mid terms means we won something.

We did, but many do not understand something that you seem to know instinctively.

The call for civility is a call for the Right to STFU. Make no mistake about it. You are correct.

As for how you “behave” I gently reminded some of you of the fact that you are guests and it’s not necessary to “fling crap” quote/unquote. Since you are oh so bothered by that, perhaps a zoo (or sandbox) is a better place for you?

Buy Danish on January 13, 2011 at 5:31 PM

See, this is where you don’t understand. We don’t need to be “reminded” by you that we are “guests” here. Being a “schoolmarm” does not become you. No one has been “flinging crap”, and no one had a “tantrum”. These are are figmentations of your closed mind.
I had just started turning the volume back up on CK, and he pulls the same crap again. And as you see, CBS, is lapping up the honey that Ed and others spread all over Obaka.

It’s one thing to praise Obaka’s speech, but CK and Ed went a little too far…and see how the LEFT took the ball and ran with it. The vitriol has not changed, and Palin is STILL in the crosshairs.

Well can’t I get the image of Obaka’s smug chin up in the air as he reads these reviews????

The call for civility is a call for the Right to STFU. Make no mistake about it. You are correct.

Saltysam on January 13, 2011 at 7:34 PM

Exactly right… These morons have no right to tell us or ask us for civility; we have been civil. We marched on DC and were peaceful and respectful. We have protested all over this country and have been peaceful and respectful. We have been called tea-baggers repeatedly, and much worse by those who now demand civility. We have had horrendous new laws shoved down our throats despite our civility and respect for our laws. For me, I’m done… When all else fails I will take the actions necessary. Progressives play us for fools, and they’re right most of the time. Sarah and the death threats the Progressives are shoveling at her while demanding civility from us is over the top. I watched a guy telling another man today that Sarah should be prosecuted for the murders that took place last Saturday. The other man punched the guy in the face; knocked him on his ass while several of us applauded his efforts. If anything happens to Sarah, all hell is going to break loose in this country.

If you are satisfied with the status quo and *ALLOWING* the left to have the narrative because you are worried that someone might get their feelings hurt or want to be liked or want to be polite, then get out of the way.

If you haven’t noticed, the left is still going at it. Why? Because they know a good portion of the right has no stomach or spine to do what is needed. Do you think Code Pink worries about niceties? SEIU? Obviously not the LSM.

How’s this civility working out for you? I saw the last 10 years get wasted away by vile, hateful people that we have been too concerned about hurting their feelings.

**IN MY OPINION** anyone who thinks that this speech was adequate in any shape, way or form has totally missed the point and have been napping in the last 10 years. The left is laughing. They know that a lot of conservatives are weak and scared of doing what is needed to win.

Review the last 10 years and I ask again, how’s the civility working out for you?

No one has been “flinging crap”, and no one had a “tantrum”. These are are figmentations of your closed mind.
lovingmyUSA on January 13, 2011 at 7:48 PM

Exhibit A:

A lot of people don’t seem to understand what is going on here. Ed and people who are thinking like Ed right now deserve every bit of crap flung their way right now.
kim roy on January 13, 2011 at 2:15 PM

Exhibit B:

Did no one but me find that offensive? I will never listen to anything he has to say again, and then he says Obama was brilliant. RINO!
silvernana on January 13, 2011 at 2:39 PM

No one has been “flinging crap”, and no one had a “tantrum”. These are are figmentations of your closed mind.
lovingmyUSA on January 13, 2011 at 7:48 PM

Exhibit A:

A lot of people don’t seem to understand what is going on here. Ed and people who are thinking like Ed right now deserve every bit of crap flung their way right now.
kim roy on January 13, 2011 at 2:15 PM

Exhibit B:

Did no one but me find that offensive? I will never listen to anything he has to say again, and then he says Obama was brilliant. RINO!
silvernana on January 13, 2011 at 2:39 PM

The end.

Buy Danish on January 13, 2011 at 9:20 PM

Are you dim? No really, are you?

If someone says something silly or completely misses the point, then shouldn’t they be called on it?

You sound like the LSM right now, wanting to pick nits about language. Of course “crap” is not being flung unless someone knows where Ed lives, knocks on the door and lets fly. I’m not entirely sure what exactly is offensive about my using the term “flinging crap”. Why is this disturbing you so much? You’ve commented on it now 3? times.

Ed is getting much deserved derision for his post. It happens. Leave me out of it because you don’t like the phrase I used.

You are behaving dangerously like Krugman, et al, after being spanked. Don’t you have a school to marm?

Ed and AP are right to praise the president finally acting presidential. But this one good act compared to the last two years is like a bright shiny apple floating in a swimming pool full of raw sewage.
I’m not tempted to dive in to get the apple, are you?

If someone says something silly or completely misses the point, then shouldn’t they be called on it?
kim roy on January 13, 2011 at 9:41 PM

You are free to agree or disagree and express your opinions in any number of ways. There are ways to do, and ways not to do it, and if your comments today are an example of how you do it, you have mastered the way not to do it.

In addition to your questionable language choices you also said this, which is a huffy puffy threat to leave if people here don’t play by your rules. Which will be the 2nd time I’ve noted it since you’re counting:

I’d prefer to win and if it means leaving people like Ed behind, then so be it.
kim roy on January 13, 2011 at 2:38 PM

BTW, it’s hilarious that you are claiming exclusive rights to ‘call out’ someone on something you disagree with. Dim be you.

A commenter at Protein Wisdom summed it all up best:
“we’re supposed to swoon [because] The Won managed to get through a memorial service without calling Rush Limbaugh a big fat d*ckhead, and millions of Tea Party activists “enemies”?”

If someone says something silly or completely misses the point, then shouldn’t they be called on it?
kim roy on January 13, 2011 at 9:41 PM

You are free to agree or disagree and express your opinions in any number of ways. There are ways to do, and ways not to do it, and if your comments today are an example of how you do it, you have mastered the way not to do it.

In addition to your questionable language choices you also said this, which is a huffy puffy threat to leave if people here don’t play by your rules. Which will be the 2nd time I’ve noted it since you’re counting:

I’d prefer to win and if it means leaving people like Ed behind, then so be it.
kim roy on January 13, 2011 at 2:38 PM

BTW, it’s hilarious that you are claiming exclusive rights to ‘call out’ someone on something you disagree with. Dim be you.

Buy Danish on January 13, 2011 at 10:18 PM

You really can’t read and comprehend, can you?

First of all, I don’t really care if you approve of my style and words. But you go ahead and beat that dead horse into a wet spot by yourself.

Secondly, you still can’t understand what I am saying after I clearly clarified it because you didn’t get it the first time. I am not leaving in a huff or threatening to do so. That comment clearly says that Ed and people like him get left behind. Why you cannot comprehend that is mystifying.

Thirdly, what are my “questionable language choices”, Mr. Krugman? And who are they questionable to? You? Live with it. Someone else? If they can give me a sane reason why it is bothersome, I’d probably apologize.

Lastly, where in the world have I claimed “exclusive rights” to call someone out??

I’m starting to wonder if you are a leftie. You certainly can’t read or comprehend and you’ve pretty much misinterpreted everything I’ve said, even the easy words.

And just to help you out with your comprehension issues, derision doesn’t necessarily imply rudeness.

That comment ["I’d prefer to win and if it means leaving people like Ed behind, then so be it"] clearly says that Ed and people like him get left behind.

It essentially says that you think that you can split off into an independent faction and win – leaving Ed (and other people who think like Ed) behind. It doesn’t say a damned thing about what happens in the real world – that’s a fantasy on your part.

Look, it’s very simple. You said that he deserves to have crap flung at him. That’s a very poor way to express your disagreement. I understand what a metaphor is. I don’t think you’re literally going to show up at his door and fling crap. How freaking dense do you have to be not to get that?

Lastly, where in the world have I claimed “exclusive rights” to call someone out??

Um, you’re demanding that you able to ‘call someone out’ (as you put it) but you’re complaining (that would be a nice way of putting it) because I did the same thing to you. Ergo, you seem to think you have exclusive rights.

I’m starting to wonder if you are a leftie. You certainly can’t read or comprehend and you’ve pretty much misinterpreted everything I’ve said, even the easy words.

I haven’t misinterpreted one word you’ve said. But there you go again with your intractable version of “conservatism”, calling me a “leftie” or “Paul Krugman” (shudder) because I don’t agree with your my way or the highway style.

If you actually took the time to read my comments and read the pieces I linked to in this thread you’d realize how idiotic your childish analysis is.

I agreed with Limbaugh before Limbaugh brought it up. I may be simply jaded to the point of being unable to allow leeway for Obama anymore. He lies and manipulates truths in order to secure his agenda. He has shown little in the way of personal compassion. Why we should think people who he didn’t know getting shot would make a difference is beyond me.

Frankly, I was embarrassed to listen to his “I’m here now to save the country” speech. I didn’t count the “I”s in the speech but there were enough for anyone listening to realize it was, again, about him. His political use of Gifford “opening her eye” moment with the FOUR repeats on the statement was theater- a tent revival preacher moment.

He finally got around to mentioning the reason why he was there- the dead people but by then the bile had reached the back of my throat and his comments had no impact on me.

Do you think I’m being too harsh? Ask yourself WHY the event was held in a college, and more importantly WHY they gave out t-shirts. Does it really sound like the deaths of those people had any sincere impact on those who spoke??? Really?

Think back to any memorial you went to for anyone and see if you remember being issued a t-shirt with a slogan and clapped and yelled when a speaker made a point.

That comment ["I’d prefer to win and if it means leaving people like Ed behind, then so be it"] clearly says that Ed and people like him get left behind.

It essentially says that you think that you can split off into an independent faction and win – leaving Ed (and other people who think like Ed) behind. It doesn’t say a damned thing about what happens in the real world – that’s a fantasy on your part.

Look, it’s very simple. You said that he deserves to have crap flung at him. That’s a very poor way to express your disagreement. I understand what a metaphor is. I don’t think you’re literally going to show up at his door and fling crap. How freaking dense do you have to be not to get that?

Lastly, where in the world have I claimed “exclusive rights” to call someone out??

Um, you’re demanding that you able to ‘call someone out’ (as you put it) but you’re complaining (that would be a nice way of putting it) because I did the same thing to you. Ergo, you seem to think you have exclusive rights.

I’m starting to wonder if you are a leftie. You certainly can’t read or comprehend and you’ve pretty much misinterpreted everything I’ve said, even the easy words.

I haven’t misinterpreted one word you’ve said. But there you go again with your intractable version of “conservatism”, calling me a “leftie” or “Paul Krugman” (shudder) because I don’t agree with your my way or the highway style.

If you actually took the time to read my comments and read the pieces I linked to in this thread you’d realize how idiotic your childish analysis is.

nite nite.

Buy Danish on January 13, 2011 at 11:19 PM

I see you gave no examples and used creative editing. All you have is *your* interpretation of what I am saying even though I have clearly explained what I meant.

*sigh* I did not use “creative editing”. I’m not going to cut and paste every word you said! I quoted the pertinent sentences in full. If we must play this idiotic game, you’re the one behaving like a “liberal” with your inability to take personal responsibility for your crude comments and intractable positions.

Actions speak louder than words. I’ve heard this man speak multiple times and my opening statement goes deeper into the stone. We know he didn’t write the speech or will he abide by what he said in the speech because there is too much video recorded to the contrary.